Which product would you choose and why: Mist AI and Cloud or Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN?

Meraki MX series are all cloud-based management with on-premises physical firewall connectivity, so if the Internet goes down you will lose the management options to the firewall. Whereas FortiGate Firewall doesn't need Internet for the first time setup. Also, it is easy to manage the management interface being it is available to local users when the case of internet connection fails. All other security features, policy creation, and VPN related remains the same as you see in any brand firewall.

The Cisco Meraki MX67 and FortiGate 60 are both firewall devices, but there are some differences between them: Deployment: The Cisco Meraki MX67 is a cloud-managed firewall, meaning that it can be managed and configured through the cloud, whereas the FortiGate 60 is typically deployed as an on-premises appliance. Security features: Both devices offer a range of security features, such as firewalling, VPN, and intrusion prevention, but they may differ in the specific features and capabilities they offer. For example, FortiGate 60 offers advanced threat protection, while the Cisco Meraki MX67 offers content filtering. Throughput: The FortiGate 60 offers higher throughput than the Cisco Meraki MX67. The FortiGate 60 can handle up to 1 Gbps of traffic, while the Cisco Meraki MX67 can handle up to 450 Mbps.  The cost of the devices may also differ. The Cisco Meraki MX67 tends to be more expensive than the FortiGate 60. Scalability: The Cisco Meraki MX67 is designed for small to medium-sized businesses, while the FortiGate 60 can scale to meet the needs of larger organizations.

Ubiquiti Wireless offers a wide range of WLAN products. We tested their devices before ultimately choosing Cisco Meraki. Ubiquiti devices have good outdoor performance and the connection is very stable. The internal roaming is also good. The best advantage, in my opinion, was the ease of management. The central control panel enables you to manage the entire wireless network, view and control the settings easily. Another feature we liked was the automatic firmware update. Ubiquiti is also more cost-effective than other alternatives. We noticed issues, though, with their layer 3 devices and routing equipment. Ubiquiti is a low-cost alternative but the tradeoff is the almost non-existent support. We had to rely on the community forums for answers. Additionally, there is a good chance a percentage of the Ubiquiti devices will break, so, have extra devices on standby. We chose Cisco Meraki because of their great wireless coverage, as is to be expected with Cisco products. Also, they offer the latest generation of WiFi technology. Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN controllers are “set and go.” Once you set it up to your preferred configuration, it just runs by itself. It is very reliable. Adding access points is very easy from the wireless controller - you can even group APs. The monitoring is very good, too. You have visibility and control over the wireless network - for instance, you can block or disconnect users. Regarding security, you can integrate the controller with most SSO vendors if you want an extra layer, but the Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN controller provides robust layer 2 security with authentication controls. The only downside we find is the licensing model. You may need several licenses and the cost can add up. Conclusions If you can afford it, go with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN. Ubiquiti provides a good affordable alternative if you don’t mind the lack of support.